5 deaths are mentioned. I see no other evidence in this article of deaths. The assertion that "More and more Americans are dying in deserts and wildernesses because they rely on their GPS units" is extremely vague, and almost entirely sensationalist speculation.
We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open.
"No industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other" supposedly includes Google too.
You cannot hurt anyone with data. There is no such thing as a threat via the internet.
If you can't hurt anyone with data, does that also mean that you can't hurt anyone by restricting data? Does that also mean there is no such thing as a "threat" via an internet kill switch?
The RIAA is apparently trying to piss off everyone they can
That actually sounds like a good infiltration strategy.
1) Infiltrate RIAA
2) Get them to do stuff that pisses everybody off
3) Rinse and repeat until RIAA is universally rejected by everyone
Instead of #1, you can just use inception, but only if you don't have freaky memories of a dead wife that will mess everything up.
Wikipedia is lousy for a lot of recent history precicely because... so little of it has been documented elsewhere on the web
Sources you cite on Wikipedia don't have to be on the web. That being said, "recent history" is usually first found in newspapers and magazines, which usually have a web version. And if the news didn't show up in significant newspapers or magazines, it's probably because the news was insigificant.
Check the sources for given facts, or Google for them if not present
Profit!!!!
Honestly, so many slashdotters crying about the suckiness of Wikipedia are just using it wrong. Wikipedia is not the source of all truth. (protip: neither is Britannica)
so with tests increasingly important in our current (broken) educational system — used to determine graduation, graduate school admission and, the latest, merit pay and tenure for teachers, Trip Gabriel writes
Tests are not important to education. They contribute little to the actual process of learning. They are simply the (very rudimentary) measuring stick to see how "tall" you are in the learnosphere. Sadly, measuring sticks only measure one dimension. Almost all fields of study have many, many more dimensions that bubble sheet/essay testing cannot measure.
That is exactly what I was thinking. But in a more articulate form. If someone claims they are a good programmer but type less than 30 WPM, there is a high probability that they are lying. Correlation != causation applies here. Slow typing does not make you a bad programmer, nor does fast typing make you a good one. But there is undeniably an observed correlation.
Atwood's rant prompted John Cook to investigate...
One quote of Atwood's blog was taken out of context. Two short sentences != rant
From the comments, it is very painfully obvious that no one reads the article(s) anymore. Not even the submitter read the Atwood article, apparently. Atwood's blog post was about keyboards, not about the people using them. He made one passing remark about not taking touch typists seriously, using a lousy metaphor to pianists. Slashdot hating Atwood much?
Also, I found the Cook article to be rather boring and contrived. Arguing against a straw man is easy. "Someone says that slow typing makes you a bad programmer. THIS IS WHY HE IS WRONG!!!" ZOMGpwnzors. OK, the article wasn't that bad. But the/. comments about it are.
I'm surprised scientists get sucked into this stuff, its about as sensible as playing the lottery, and self-destructive to the viability of one's own profession.
Some people actually *enjoy* their profession, and do not need to be paid for *everything* they do (e.g. open source?). Plus, even if they don't win, they at least strengthen their portfolio and skills.
I guess we need both kinds of people, the idealists that keep the system clean and the pragmatists that make the system work. Without them we would either be at the mercy of Microsoft or struggling to boot The Hurd.
Sounds a lot like Haskell mentality: write as much "pure" code as you can and then do what little you must inside the IO Monad.
A week later the edit was gone. Re-edited, same thing.
Did you check the edit summaries? There is a history of diffs that documents exactly when your content was deleted, and by whom. Wikipedia would never work if a bunch of people just throw information into the pot and then leave. The problem is, though, that Wikipedia kind of advertises itself as if it worked that way.
To really change anything at Wikipedia, you need to stick around for a bit and defend your contributions with good sources and sound logic.
But I just want to throw in my 2c and not think about it any more! It's voluntary so you should be happy that I at least did that! I'm right and if you're smart then you should see that because my logic (which I haven't taken the time to explain to you) is infallible!
If that's you, then do you really think your 2c are really worth even 2c? Especially on popular articles, there has been a lot of thought that went into making them; the edit that took you 20 seconds to dream up was probably thought of already. If you really do have infallible logic, then lay it out on the talk pages, if necessary.
The accommodating lens was added to the article. Obviously, someone from Wikpedia had seen my comment.
Basically, unless you are willing to become "someone from Wikpedia", you're not likely to make a lasting dent, and will instead rely on the whims of those who actually commit some time to the process.
Isn't moonlight supposed to solve this problem? Though I tried using it semi-recently. And I tried wine. And I tried user-agent switcher in Firefox. Couldn't quite get any combination of those to work (on Linux, obviously) such that Netflix would accept it and stream videos to me.
Like speeding, just because a law exists doesn't mean I will obey it. If I want to convert my Watch to cash, I will find a way to do it.
That is actually a really good segway into Free Culture. I'm recalling the book's discussion relating to the Adobe eReader incident.
This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright law as
copyright code. The controls over access to content will not be controls
that are ratied by courts; the controls over access to content will be
controls that are coded by programmers.And whereas the controls that
are built into the law are always to be checked by a judge, the controls
that are built into the technology have no similar built-in check.
In the future, you don't break the law. The law breaks you.
The website-attacking group 'Anonymous' tried and failed to take down Amazon.com on Thursday. The group's vengeance horde quickly found out something techies have known for years: Amazon, which has built one of the world's most invincible websites, is almost impossible to crash.... Anonymous quickly figured that out.
Good thing they not only found it out, they figured it out.
A device, comprising: a memory to store instructions; and a processor to execute the instructions in the memory to: provide a tool bar within a web browser application window, the tool bar including a button, for activating a highlighting operation, and an input box, present a document within the web browser application window, receive a search term within the input box of the tool bar after presenting the document within the web browser application window, receive selection of the button to activate the highlighting operation after receiving the search term within the input box, change, without user intervention and in response to receiving the selection of the button, a characteristic of the search term in the document, presented within the web browser application window, to form a modified document, and present the modified document, where an occurrence of the search term, within the modified document, has the changed characteristic.
All that text, with just one period.
Want your patent granted? Just write a mind-numbingly long description (with one large run-on sentence) that sounds intelligent and unique.
I should patent that technique.
A patent application, comprising: a sentence to store commas; and an unintelligibly simple concept to: be placed within the description of the patent, including words of such quality which, when read by common English-speakers, produce the numbing of minds, a characteristic of confusingly long sentences, for feigning the appearance of intelligence, wherewith to produce uniqueness, in an illusion of the mind, rather than the reality of ubiquity, to procure the granting of the patent, where the USPTO, within the scope of software patents, has not as of yet, hired grammar trolls.
Slashdot Mirror
5 deaths are mentioned. I see no other evidence in this article of deaths. The assertion that "More and more Americans are dying in deserts and wildernesses because they rely on their GPS units" is extremely vague, and almost entirely sensationalist speculation.
That gives Android a 33% share of the global mobile market
Google has a heavy hand in Android, but doesn't necessarily "own" it. Quoth http://source.android.com/
We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open.
"No industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other" supposedly includes Google too.
You cannot hurt anyone with data. There is no such thing as a threat via the internet.
If you can't hurt anyone with data, does that also mean that you can't hurt anyone by restricting data? Does that also mean there is no such thing as a "threat" via an internet kill switch?
Been dismissed multiple times before by real scientists.
[citation needed]
The RIAA is apparently trying to piss off everyone they can
That actually sounds like a good infiltration strategy.
1) Infiltrate RIAA
2) Get them to do stuff that pisses everybody off
3) Rinse and repeat until RIAA is universally rejected by everyone
Instead of #1, you can just use inception, but only if you don't have freaky memories of a dead wife that will mess everything up.
Wikipedia is lousy for a lot of recent history precicely because ... so little of it has been documented elsewhere on the web
Sources you cite on Wikipedia don't have to be on the web. That being said, "recent history" is usually first found in newspapers and magazines, which usually have a web version. And if the news didn't show up in significant newspapers or magazines, it's probably because the news was insigificant.
Free programs are not always cheaper
Implication: Free programs usually are "cheaper".
Slashdot slaughtering of statement
Open Source more expensive
Implication: Free programs usually "cost" more.
Headline sensationalism much?
...with 30% of phone subscribers owning iPhones, BlackBerries, and Androids...
FTFY. Droids are only a subset of Androids
Honestly, so many slashdotters crying about the suckiness of Wikipedia are just using it wrong. Wikipedia is not the source of all truth. (protip: neither is Britannica)
Why Sony Cannot Stop PS3 Game Pirates
FTFY. I highly doubt that there have been or will be many instances of people swashbuckling their way out of Walmart with a brand new PS3 in tow.
Is Apple *trying* to lose the hearts and minds of FOSS developers? Why not just make a special section of the App store that is GPL-friendly?
there are steps to reproduce in the bug report
False. From the linked bug report:
Interestingly, has never occurred on my other Nexus running the same FRF50 build.
Basically, he says he *can't* reproduce the bug on just any device. Only on one particular device.
welcome our heavy-metal-playing, made-of-heavy-metal robot overlords :-)
Aw...you beat me to the obligatory slashdot overlord-welcoming.
a new technology design which has the potential to exponentially increase computing power
P = NP
QED
so with tests increasingly important in our current (broken) educational system — used to determine graduation, graduate school admission and, the latest, merit pay and tenure for teachers, Trip Gabriel writes
Tests are not important to education. They contribute little to the actual process of learning. They are simply the (very rudimentary) measuring stick to see how "tall" you are in the learnosphere. Sadly, measuring sticks only measure one dimension. Almost all fields of study have many, many more dimensions that bubble sheet/essay testing cannot measure.
That is exactly what I was thinking. But in a more articulate form. If someone claims they are a good programmer but type less than 30 WPM, there is a high probability that they are lying. Correlation != causation applies here. Slow typing does not make you a bad programmer, nor does fast typing make you a good one. But there is undeniably an observed correlation.
Summary fail.
Atwood's rant prompted John Cook to investigate...
One quote of Atwood's blog was taken out of context. Two short sentences != rant
From the comments, it is very painfully obvious that no one reads the article(s) anymore. Not even the submitter read the Atwood article, apparently. Atwood's blog post was about keyboards, not about the people using them. He made one passing remark about not taking touch typists seriously, using a lousy metaphor to pianists. Slashdot hating Atwood much?
Also, I found the Cook article to be rather boring and contrived. Arguing against a straw man is easy. "Someone says that slow typing makes you a bad programmer. THIS IS WHY HE IS WRONG!!!" ZOMGpwnzors. OK, the article wasn't that bad. But the /. comments about it are.
I'm surprised scientists get sucked into this stuff, its about as sensible as playing the lottery, and self-destructive to the viability of one's own profession.
Some people actually *enjoy* their profession, and do not need to be paid for *everything* they do (e.g. open source?). Plus, even if they don't win, they at least strengthen their portfolio and skills.
I guess we need both kinds of people, the idealists that keep the system clean and the pragmatists that make the system work. Without them we would either be at the mercy of Microsoft or struggling to boot The Hurd.
Sounds a lot like Haskell mentality: write as much "pure" code as you can and then do what little you must inside the IO Monad.
A week later the edit was gone. Re-edited, same thing.
Did you check the edit summaries? There is a history of diffs that documents exactly when your content was deleted, and by whom. Wikipedia would never work if a bunch of people just throw information into the pot and then leave. The problem is, though, that Wikipedia kind of advertises itself as if it worked that way.
To really change anything at Wikipedia, you need to stick around for a bit and defend your contributions with good sources and sound logic.
But I just want to throw in my 2c and not think about it any more! It's voluntary so you should be happy that I at least did that! I'm right and if you're smart then you should see that because my logic (which I haven't taken the time to explain to you) is infallible!
If that's you, then do you really think your 2c are really worth even 2c? Especially on popular articles, there has been a lot of thought that went into making them; the edit that took you 20 seconds to dream up was probably thought of already. If you really do have infallible logic, then lay it out on the talk pages, if necessary.
The accommodating lens was added to the article. Obviously, someone from Wikpedia had seen my comment.
Basically, unless you are willing to become "someone from Wikpedia", you're not likely to make a lasting dent, and will instead rely on the whims of those who actually commit some time to the process.
Isn't moonlight supposed to solve this problem? Though I tried using it semi-recently. And I tried wine. And I tried user-agent switcher in Firefox. Couldn't quite get any combination of those to work (on Linux, obviously) such that Netflix would accept it and stream videos to me.
For historic reasons, here's the relevant xkcd permalink
Like speeding, just because a law exists doesn't mean I will obey it. If I want to convert my Watch to cash, I will find a way to do it.
That is actually a really good segway into Free Culture. I'm recalling the book's discussion relating to the Adobe eReader incident.
This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright law as copyright code. The controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratied by courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded by programmers.And whereas the controls that are built into the law are always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the technology have no similar built-in check.
In the future, you don't break the law. The law breaks you.
The website-attacking group 'Anonymous' tried and failed to take down Amazon.com on Thursday. The group's vengeance horde quickly found out something techies have known for years: Amazon, which has built one of the world's most invincible websites, is almost impossible to crash.... Anonymous quickly figured that out.
Good thing they not only found it out, they figured it out.
A device, comprising: a memory to store instructions; and a processor to execute the instructions in the memory to: provide a tool bar within a web browser application window, the tool bar including a button, for activating a highlighting operation, and an input box, present a document within the web browser application window, receive a search term within the input box of the tool bar after presenting the document within the web browser application window, receive selection of the button to activate the highlighting operation after receiving the search term within the input box, change, without user intervention and in response to receiving the selection of the button, a characteristic of the search term in the document, presented within the web browser application window, to form a modified document, and present the modified document, where an occurrence of the search term, within the modified document, has the changed characteristic.
All that text, with just one period.
Want your patent granted? Just write a mind-numbingly long description (with one large run-on sentence) that sounds intelligent and unique.
I should patent that technique.
A patent application, comprising: a sentence to store commas; and an unintelligibly simple concept to: be placed within the description of the patent, including words of such quality which, when read by common English-speakers, produce the numbing of minds, a characteristic of confusingly long sentences, for feigning the appearance of intelligence, wherewith to produce uniqueness, in an illusion of the mind, rather than the reality of ubiquity, to procure the granting of the patent, where the USPTO, within the scope of software patents, has not as of yet, hired grammar trolls.